法規解析
新的領證後複審程序間接提升美國專利品質
Hon. Gerald J. Mossinghoff,Stephen G. Kuni 撰文
李淑蓮 中文編譯/北美智權報 編輯部
陳宜誠律師 審稿/北美智權教育訓練處 首席研究員
2013.04.16
         

作者簡介:
Hon. Gerald J. Mossinghoff


Hon. Gerald J. Mossinghoff 是美國Oblon Spivak 律師事務所的資深律師,同時也是全球頂級的智慧財產權專家之一。他針對智財權的問題能從多方面提供客戶建議,包括國際、立法及政策等不同面向。他同時也在George Washington University Law School任教,教授專利法課程。Mossinghoff於2007年榮登智慧財產名人堂 (Intellectual Property Hall of Fame.)。

Stephen G. Kunin

Stephen G. Kunin為美國Oblon Spivak 律師事務所合夥人,他同時也是事務所領證後複審程序委員會主任委員,代表客戶於USPTO執行領證後複審程序作業。Kunin同時也是George Mason School of Law的智慧財產計劃主席,並在大學任教專利法及智慧財產權。

美國總統林肯曾經說過美國的專利制度是「在天才的火苗上加上利益的燃料」(added the fuel of interest to the fire of genius)。身為唯一一位有獲得過專利證書的美國總統,林肯了解美國專利不管是在推動「實用工藝…的發展」上、或是以現今的用語來說,在鼓勵「創造及採用尖端科技」上,都扮演了相當稱職的角色。一個高效能及具價值的美國專利系統對於全球高科技產業的重要性可以反映在許多方面,然而,卻都沒有美國專利數量本身那麼讓人驚艷。

在1981年,美國的年度專利申請數為114,710件,而同年度的專利領證量為71,010。於30年後的今天,美國2011年度專利申請量為535,188,而專利領證量則為245,861 - 成長超過4倍。但真正值得關切的是在專利申請量及領證量大量增加的同時,美國專利商標局(USPTO)為了消化案量,引進了大批新手及無經驗的專利審查人員(審查人員的經驗一定是從無到有,這是必然之事),因此可能無法避免的要對專利的審查品質作一定程度的妥協。

一般來說,我們認為專利審查人員都是全心投入且具工作效率的專業人士,能在被賦予的有限的時間內,針對申請案的請求項作出相當完善的前案檢索;且藉由自動搜尋工具的協助及全球聯網的技術資訊電子資料庫,審查人員的前案檢索能力已大幅提升。但前案的範圍是很寬廣的,例如包含未公開的商業活動等,因此審查人員在處理一件申請案的前案檢索時候,仍然很難發現所有的前案文件、公開應用、或是銷售訊息等。

在過去這些年以來,共有2種法定的專利再審查制度被提出,好讓任何人都可以針對已獲證的專利,提出新的問題來質疑當中請求項的可專利性。而世界上主要國家的專利制度,像歐洲及日本專利制度,當然也包括英國及德國專利制度,也都有不同形式的領證後複審行政程序,可讓第三方來挑戰一個領證後專利的有效性。

在美國總統歐巴馬於2011年9月簽署公布的(Leahy-Smith America Invents Act,簡稱AIA,公共法案112-29)中,國會針對已獲證專利,新制定了「領證後複審程序」 (Post-Grant Review,PGR)  (包括僅適用於商業方法專利的特殊PGR程序),並以新的「多方複審」(Inter Partes Review,IPR)取代了原本存在的「多方再審查」(Inter Partes Examination)制度。自此,AIA本身呈現了自1952年美國專利法以來,最全面的專利法修訂。

由於考量到美國專利系統在結構性上,跟不上科技與經濟環境的發展及變遷,因此在21世紀初產生了3項對專利系統改進的主要研究:

(1) 2004年由國家研究委員會中的國家科學及工程學院(National Research Council of the National Academies of Science and Engineering)主導的「為21 世紀而設的專利制度」之研究。
(2) 2003年由聯邦貿易委員會(Federal Trade Commission)所主導的「推動創新:競爭與專利法及政策之適當平衡」
(3) 2005年由國家公共行政學院(National Academy of Public Administration)所主導的「美國專利商標局 (USPTO) :「轉型迎接21世紀」。

以上每一項研究在結論中都建議國會建立一項新的程序,讓第3方可以行政手段來挑戰已領證的美國專利之有效性。       

在制訂AIA法案的同時,已經存在2種形式的專利複審(Review)或再審查程序 (Reexamination),分別是USPTO於1981年以公共法96-517建立的「單方再審查」(Ex Parte Reexamination)程序,及USPTO於1999年以公共法106-113所建立的「多方再審查」(Inter Partes Reexamination)程序。

以上2種專利再審查程序的共同點是:(1) 適用於有效的已領證專利,及(2)再審查的基礎限於先前專利及先前公開出版物。其他可以讓專利無效的依據,像先前公開使用、先前公開銷售、或是揭露不足等,均被排除在外。截至2012年6月30日為止,在官方紀錄中已有10,755件單方再審查申請及1,433件多方再審查程序申請。

在單方再審查程序建立後不久,就被質疑它等於是侵害人民已公告登記之財產,而違反憲法第5修正案(Fifth Amendment)之正當程序,及違反憲法第7修正案(Seventh Amendment)。我們認為這些關於IPR或是PGR的類似挑戰,法院將會依循Patlex v. Mossinghoff一案判決中被定義的抉擇脈絡來決定。

而國會面臨的2項主要爭議,皆已被AIA法案解決,包括:
(1) 如果要建立PGR,其適用的事由是什麼?及
(2) 什麼樣的美國專利,應交由PGR程序處理?

針對第2 個議題,辯論的焦點集中在有多少機會或是有多少個時間區間可以讓專利挑戰者啟動PGR?如果是「單一時間區間」的話,那針對一個已領證專利執行PGR便會被限定於一個固定時間區間之內提出,例如在領證後1年內。而在「2個時間區間」的情況下,則有兩次提出PGR的機會,可在第1窗口的時限內提出PGR,如果過一陣子專利之有效性被挑戰時(像在訴訟時),則可再提一次。

後來國會決定採用單一時間區間方式,並以9個月時間為限,而且是限制於在新先發明人申請制(First Inventor to File,簡稱FITF)實施後送件的專利申請案才適用。因為法令規定只有在FITF實施後送件的專利申請案獲領證後才適用於PGR(譯註:依現行法令,只有適用FITF的專利申請案才適用PGR,但FITF實施後,不是所有申請案都適用FITF),而非立即適用於所有已生效的專利,所以這樣有一個好處就是可以避免PGR會引起像雪崩般蜂擁而來的申請效應;同時,國會也以新的「多方複審」 (IPR) 取代既有的「多方再審查」 (Inter Partes Reexamination)。此一方式有一個好處就是在「第一窗口」(first window)時即可建立一個領證後的異議程序,並可以讓IPR看起來更像先前的多方再審查程序­-即使此異議程序已被AIA法案改變;在立法當時,這也被視為領證後專利程序的「巨大妥協」。(譯註:有人把PGR當作1st-window,IPR視為2nd-window。)

總的來說,在AIA領證後條款生效日開始,總共會有4種領證後專利程序:

(1)   「單方再審查」(Ex Parte Reexamination,簡稱EPR),由USPTO中央複審單位(CRU) 負責執行,應用於所有有效的專利,與既有現行方式一樣並沒有改變。
(2)   「多方複審」 (Inter Partes Review,簡稱IPR),由新成立的專利審理暨訴願委員會(Patent Trial and Appeal Board,PTAB)負責執行,並適用於2012年9月16日或之後生效的專利。
(3)    「領證後複審程序」 (Post-Grant Review,簡稱PGR) ,同樣由PTAB負責執行,並只適用於在AIA法案的先發明人申請制(FITF)生效後送件申請的專利,且必須於領證後9個月內啟動。就現實而言,最早適用之專利應是於2013年3月16日送件申請的專利,相信即使採用Track 1優先審查程序,最快也須等到2014年才能領證。
(4)    「商業方法專利過渡期複審」(Transitional Program for Covered Business Method Patent Review,簡稱CBM)程序,同樣由PTAB負責執行,並適用於所請發明係「用以實施、經營、或管理金融產品服務的資訊處理或其他操作程序」之專利;CBM並不包括科技創新發明方面的專利。

程序 (1) 與程序 (2) 只限於使用先前專利或是公開出版品,而PGR程序除最佳實施例問題外,可用以挑戰一美國專利有效性的所有事由,範圍遠遠超越先前專利或是公開出版品。至於CBM程序則有幾項對於FTI專利之先前技術於本程序內提出的限制,且CBM程序本身有落日條款,2020年過後就會廢止之。

身為美國參議院推動AIA法案頒布的成員之一,法案的主要支持者,同時也是參議院司法委員會主席的Patrick J. Leahy參議員指出:
「美國AIA發明法案可以讓美國長期保有在創新頂端的位置。此法案將建立一個更有效率及運作更流暢的專利制度,從而改善專利品質及限制非必要及無建設性的專利訴訟費用,也可確保不會有任何一方會被拒於法院之外。」

同樣的,眾議院委員會報告No.112-98第39-40頁也指出:
「在專利法改革的辯論過程中所聽到的聲音……將委員會的注意力集中在使我們的專利授證系統與世界各工業大國主要專利系統一致以保障美國專利權人的權益,提升專利品質,提供一個更有效的專利異議制度,以及降低不當的訴訟費用與避免不合理的損害賠償等價值上。」

由於PGR程序並不適用於2014年之前獲證的專利,而CBM只適用於具有特定主題且用於金融產品服務的專利,而非技術上的創新發明。因此,我們相信至少在AIA法案生效的前幾年,IPR的申請案在數量上會大大超越其他種類的複審申請案。

自2012年9月16日起,第3方即可在先前專利及已公開之出版品的基礎下,以IPR程序來挑戰任何專利的有效性。IPR程序是一訴願程序,包含詰問之庭期,一旦申請案被接受且USPTO同意啟動該程序,PTAB在12-18個月內即要作出決定。提起IPR的門檻需求為「請求人是否有可能成功證明至少有一個專利請求項具不可專利性?」。本程序在經過聽審(oral hearing)後,便會寄發最終書面決定,此決定對於未能成功建立專利請求項不具可專利性的第3方挑戰者會有禁反言的效果(譯註:日後不能以同一事由,再提出訴願或訴訟)。USPTO將貫徹PTAB於所頒發的複審審定書中之決定。而對於該PTAB決定,當事人只能向聯邦巡迴法院上訴。IPR快速的處理程序將會鼓勵地方法院法官暫停相關訴訟程序,等待IPR程序的結果(PTAB決定)再續行訴訟。

在AIA法案下的新「多方複審」IPR程序,將可排解許多對既有「多方再審查」程序所產生的憂慮及不安。IPR程序一定要在訴願人或是實質利益關係人提出確認之訴之前;或是訴願人或是實質利益關係人被控侵權的一年內提出申請;且不得在領證或是再領證後9個月內或專利的PGR程序终結前提出。IPR程序會在PTAB執行,以避免上訴前經中央複審單位處理之複審申請所產生之延誤。由於多方再審查常造成的多年延誤將被IPR消弭,法院可能比較傾向於同意暫停訴訟,以待IPR的結果。多方再審查的禁反言效果對於同時進行中的訴訟不會產生實質影響,因為它要到頒發複審審定書後才會產生效力。然而,在IPR程序中,一旦PTAB發出書面的複審審定書後,禁反言即會發生拘束當事人之效果,而此禁反言會同時影響後續進行之民事訴訟及國際貿易委員會 (ITC) 之程序。禁反言不僅適用於訴願人,也同時對實質利益關係人有效力。再者,因為啟動IPR的門檻已提高至「合理的成功性」標準,及專利權人將被允許提出初步回應,說明該訴願並未滿足成案要件,不應啟動IPR程序等,因此預期USPTO對於IPR案的批准率會降低。針對1999年11月29日前提出專利申請案的領證專利提出IPR的限制也已經取消。IPR程序可能會在雙方和解協議下終結,惟PTAB仍有權無視和解協議,完成IPR程序並寄發其書面決定。

複審程序成案後,一個專利權人可以對其作出回應,並附具事實證據及專家意見。專利權人會被允許修改、刪除請求項,並可提出合理數目的替代請求項。然而,如果這些新增或是修改的請求項出現非前案相關議題,例如擴大原有請求項的範圍、增加新事證(new matter)、請求項內容不明確等等,則仍須觀望這些修正會否被納入,如果被納入的話,則要看PTAB是否會作出以該等非先前技術相關請求項的更動不具可專利性的決定。

美國專利系統對於創造、揭露、及使用尖端技術之真正動機及誘引從未如此明顯過。全世界各大專利局正努力趕上隨著專利申請數以指數遞增的工作量,但專利品質不能因為(1) 工作量增加及(2) 在嶄新的技術領域中申請專利等因素而被犧牲。世界各地主要的專利局都已經建立了某些形式的領證後複審制度,而這些程序也運作得相當良好。AIA所建立的新IPR及PRG程序將允許產業界及學術界的專家參與最終決議,確認已領證的專利是不是真的夠格拿到專利。這可以提供專利局的專家們全新及有效的能力去確認,只有真正有價值的發明才能獲得國家所發出的專利。另一方面,專利局也可以對大眾提供重要的保證,確保美國專利的品質以及任何在太陽底下由人類創造的發明都可申請專利。

 關於 Oblon, Spivak:
有超過40年歷史的Oblon, Spivak 是美國最大的專利法律事務所之一,其位於美國維吉尼亞州的總部與美國專利商標局(USPTO)只有數步之遙。Oblon Spivak 的服務遍及全球各地的企業,包括日本、法國、德國及義大利等地,因此公司員工都能用包括日文、法文、德文、國語及韓文在內的數種語言與不同國家的客戶溝通。Oblon Spivak為美國排名第一的專利法律事務所,於2011年共獲得5,686件美國專利,比排名第2及第3位的事務所分別多出2,067件及2,350件。

New Post Grant Administrative Trials Before the USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board

By:  Hon. Gerald J. Mossinghoff and Stephen G. Kunin

President Lincoln said that the U.S. patent system "added the fuel of interest to the fire of genius."  As the only U.S. president who received a patent, Lincoln understood how U.S. patents served well their constitutional purpose of promoting the "Progress of . . . useful Arts" or, in today's lexicon, fostering the creation and use of cutting-edge technology.  The importance of an efficient and effective U.S. patent system to the high technology industry worldwide is reflected in many indicia but perhaps none are more striking than the numbers themselves. 

In 1981, there were 114,710 patent applications filed and 71,010 U.S. patents granted.  Three decades later, in 2011, there were 535,188 applications filed and 245,861 patents granted – more than a four-fold increase.  But there is real concern that with the dramatic increase in the number of patent applications filed and patents granted – and with the influx of new and unavoidably inexperienced examiners hired to handle the workload – compromises to patent quality may be inevitable. 

It is our view that patent examiners are, as a general rule, dedicated and effective professionals who – in the necessarily limited time available to them – do an extraordinarily good job of searching and applying relevant prior art to the claims of the applications being examined.  Their capability in this task has been strengthened immeasurably by the addition of automated search tools and global access to electronic databases of technical information.  By the very nature of the breadth of prior art – including, e.g., unpublished commercial activity – examiners are nevertheless rarely aware of all of the relevant prior art or public uses or on sale bars in any given case. 

Over the years, two forms of patent reexamination have been enacted to permit any person to raise new questions of patentability of a claim of an issued patent.  Major patent systems of the world – notably, the European and Japanese patent systems, along with others, including the British and German patent systems – all have forms of administrative post-grant procedures during which the validity of a patent may be challenged.

In the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act ("AIA"), signed by President Obama as Public Law 112-29 on September 16, 2011, Congress enacted a chapter on Post-Grant Review ("PGR") of granted patents (including a special flavor of PGR applicable to business method patents), and it replaced the existing inter partes examination system with a new inter partes review ("IPR") of granted patents.  The AIA itself represents the most complete revision of the patent law since the Patent Act of 1952.

Concern that the U.S. patent system was not keeping up structurally with the domestic technological and economic environment led to three major studies on the patent system in the early years of this century:
A 2004 study by the National Research Council of the National Academies of Science and Engineering on "A Patent System for the 21st Century."

A 2003 study entitled "To Promote Innovations: The Proper Balance of Competition and Patent Law and Policy" by the Federal Trade Commission.

A 2005 study of the National Academy of Public Administration on: "U.S. Patent and Trademark Office: Transforming to Meet the Challenges of the 21st Century."

Each of these studies resulted in a recommendation that the Congress establish a new procedure for third parties to administratively challenge the validity of issued U.S. patents.

At the time of enactment of the AIA, there were two types of reexaminations: Ex parte reexamination, established in the USPTO in 1981 by Public Law 96-517, and Inter partes reexamination, established in the USPTO in 1999 by Public Law 106-113.

Common to both reexamination systems are (1) that they are applicable to in-force granted patents 1, and (2) the grounds for reexamination are limited to prior patents and publications.  Other grounds for invalidity a patent – e.g., prior public use, prior sales or lack of enablement – are excluded.  As of June 30, 2012, 10,755 ex parte reexaminations and 1,433 inter parties reexaminations have been docketed.

Not long after ex parte reexamination was established it was challenged as amounting to an unconstitutional taking of vested property without due process under the Fifth Amendment and as a violation of the Seventh Amendment.

Any similar challenges to inter partes review or post-grant review in our view will be decided along the same lines as that formulated in Patlex v. Mossinghoff.

Two major issues facing Congress, and resolved by the AIA, were:
(1)    If Post-Grant Review was to be established, what grounds would be applicable, and
(2)    What U.S. patents would be subject to Post-Grant Review.

Regarding the second issue, the debate centered around how many opportunities, or windows, a challenger would have to initiate a Post-Grant Review.     With the "one window" approach, a granted patent would be subject to post-grant review only during a limited window or period of time – e.g., one year or less – after it is granted.  Under a "two window" approach, a patent would be subject to post-grant review during the first window and later if the validity of the patent were to be challenged, e.g., during litigation.

The one window approach – with a nine-month duration – was adopted by the Congress in the AIA and limited to patents that are filed under the new first-inventor-to-file system.  That has the advantage of avoiding a possible avalanche of requests for post-grant review, since the provision will only apply to patents as they are granted, and not immediately to all in-force patents.  At the same time, Congress replaced inter partes reexamination with a new inter partes review or IPR.  This approach has the advantage of establishing a post-grant opposition procedure during the "first window" and making IPR look somewhat more like the former inter partes reexamination procedure albeit as improved by the AIA during the life of U.S. patents.  At the time, this was referred to as the "great compromise" on post-issuance patent procedures. 

In summary, after the effective date of the AIA post-grant provisions there exist four post-issuance patent procedures:

(1)    Ex parte reexamination, implemented by the USPTO's Central Reexamination Unit ("CRU"), applicable to all in-force patents without change from current practice.
(2)    Inter partes review, implemented by the newly established Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("PTAB") and applicable to all patents in force on or after September 16, 2012.
(3)    Post-grant review, also implemented by the PTAB and applicable to be triggered only during the first nine months after grant of patents filed under the first-inventor-to-file procedures established by the AIA.  Realistically, the earliest patent covered would be filed after March 16, 2013, and likely not granted until 2014 at the earliest if made subject to the Track 1 prioritized examination procedure.
(4)   Transitional Program for Covered Business Method patents, likewise implemented by the PTAB and applicable to patents directed to “data processing or other operations used in the practice, administration, or management of a financial product or service, except that the term does not include patents for technological inventions.” 

Procedures (1) and (2) will be limited to art that constitutes prior patents and publications.  Post-grant review will include all grounds (except for best mode) on which a U.S. patent may be held to be invalid, going beyond prior patents and publications. Transitional Program for Covered Business Methods has certain limitations on the types of prior art applicable to first-to-invent patents that can be raised during the proceeding and sunsets in the year 2020.

In urging enactment of the AIA in the U.S. Senate, Senator Patrick J.Leahy, the principal sponsor of the bill and Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, stated:
The America Invents Act will keep America in its longstanding position at the pinnacle of innovation.  This bill will establish a more efficient and streamlined patent system that will improve patent quality and limit unnecessary and counterproductive litigation costs, while making sure no party’s access to court is denied.

Similarly, the House of Representatives Committee Report, No. 112-98 at pages 39-40, noted that:
The voices heard during the debate over changes to the patent law have … focused the Committee’s attention on the value of harmonizing our system for granting patents with the best parts of other major patent systems throughout the industrialized world for the benefit of U.S. patent holders; improving patent quality and providing a more efficient system for challenging patents that should not have issued; and reducing unwarranted litigation costs and inconsistent damage awards.

The post-grant review procedures will be not be available for patents issued prior to about 2014 and The Transitional Program for Covered Business Methods will be applicable only to patents directed to specific subject matter other than a technological invention used in a financial product of service.  Accordingly, we believe that petitions for inter partes review will greatly outnumber petitions for the other types of review at least for the first several years of practice under the AIA.

The inter partes review (IPR) proceedings will be available to third party requesters as of September 16, 2012 to challenge the validity of any patents in force on the basis of patents and printed publications.  IPR proceedings will be contested proceedings that are adjudicated by the PTAB within 12 to 18 months once the proceedings have been ordered. The threshold requirement for instituting the proceedings is whether the petitioner is likely to succeed in proving unpatentability of at least one patent claim. The proceedings will lead to a final written decision after an oral hearing that has an estoppel effect in litigation against the third party challenger who is unsuccessful in establishing the unpatentability of challenged patent claims. The actions taken in the review will become effectuated through the issuance of a review certificate. The PTAB decision is only appealable to the Federal Circuit.  It is unclear whether the statutory estoppel will be vacated if the third party requester is successful in the appeal.  The rapidity of the process will encourage district court judges in concurrent litigation proceedings to grant stays of the litigation pending the outcome of the inter partes review.

The new inter partes review proceedings under the America Invents Act will address many of the concerns presented by the soon-to-sunset inter partes reexamination proceedings. The inter partes review must be filed before any declaratory judgment action filed by the petitioner or real party in interest; or within one year of the petitioner or real party in interest being sued for infringement on the patent; and in any event no earlier than nine months after the issuance or reissuance of the patent and no earlier than the termination of a post‐grant review proceeding for the patent.  The inter partes review proceedings will begin at the PTAB and avoid the delays associated with reexamination before the Central Reexamination Unit that occur prior to an appeal.  Because the multiple years of delay associated with inter partes reexamination will be eliminated in inter partes review, courts may be more inclined to grant stays of the litigation.  In inter partes reexamination the estoppel effect had no practical effect on concurrent litigation, because it did not attach until issuance of the reexamination certificate.  In IPR, however, the estoppel attaches upon issuance of the final written decision of the PTAB and that estoppel will be effective for both civil actions and International Trade Commission proceedings.  The estoppel will apply not only to the requester, but to the real party in interest. Also, because the threshold to initiate inter partes review has been raised to a reasonable likelihood of prevailing standard and patent owners will be permitted to file preliminary responses setting forth reasons why no inter partes review should be instituted based upon the failure of the petition to meet any of the IPR requirements, it is expected that grant rate will be lower.  There will no longer be a prohibition against challenging patents granted on applications filed prior to November 29, 1999.  IPR proceedings may be terminated by settlement, although the PTAB may in its discretion proceed to final written decision.

A patent owner response once the proceedings are instituted may include factual evidence and expert opinions.  The patent owner will be permitted to amend, cancel and propose a reasonable number of substitute claims.  However, if such new or amended claims raise non‐prior art issues such as enlarging the scope of the original claims, adding new matter, indefiniteness, etc. it remains to be seen as to whether such amendments will be entered and if so, whether non‐prior art unpatentability findings will be made by the PTAB.

The very real incentives of the U.S. patent system for the creation, disclosure, and use of cutting-edge technology have never been more apparent.  The major challenge to the leading patent offices of the world is to keep pace with exponentially increasing workloads.  The quality of granted patents should not be permitted to suffer as a result of (1) increasing workloads or (2) the inevitable move to patent inventions in new pioneering areas.  Major patent offices of the world have established some form of post-grant review of granted patents, and these procedures have worked well.  The new inter partes review and post-grant review procedures established by AIA will permit industrial and academic experts to participate in the ultimate decision to confirm or not to confirm a granted patent.  This will provide the recognized experts at the PTO with an entirely new and effective capability to ensure that only truly deserving inventions received their Constitutional due.  In turn, that will provide important assurances to the public on the quality of U.S. patents granted in a system in which anything under the sun created by humans – and inventive – can be patented.

 

*Inter partes reexamination is limited to patents based on applications filed on or after November 29, 1999.

About Oblon, Spivak:
Companies across the world depend on Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt to help them establish, leverage and protect their intellectual property assets in the United States and abroad. Headquartered within steps of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Oblon, Spivak is one of the largest law firms in the United States focusing exclusively on intellectual property law.

 

更多歷期精采文章,請參閱智權報總覽 >>

Facebook 按讚馬上加入北美智權報粉絲團